| Was the wolf's name Tube-Socks? |
Six days. Four hours. A Native American Kevin Costner. Graham Greene playing his only cliché Hollywood persona. Finally, it is done. The "it" being referred to is the epic 1990 Oscar sweeping film by Kevin Costner, entitled "Dances with Wolves". My first encounter with this film was when I was very young, enjoying an overnight with a friend, falling asleep to the bountiful landscapes that seemed to go on forever. It was a film that was hailed a masterpiece by critics, while allowing Costner to finally be able to pick and choose his repetitive roles over the next two decades. Alas, picking it up, watching it now in its modern high-definition glory - it is still a beautiful film, but it is not perfection. As mentioned in the first line of this review, Costner's film is not for the amateur film viewer - it is a film that forces you to put on your Buffalo skin, open a fire, and settle in for a very cold winter. Unbeknownst to me, there is a "director's cut" of the film that now ranges nearly four hours. That is what I settled into and doubtably now, upon my completion, should be called - Sits with Costner Epic.
Hollywood loves the epic. It doesn't matter much these days what the topic surrounds, as long as there are long picture-esque images of Americana (or some other country), coupled with a tender moment, a blasting score, and sympathy towards anything - than the epic will reign supreme. For further examples of this see "Braveheart", "The English Patient", or even Costner's second epic outing "The Postman", and while not all of these were Oscar winners, the critics went easy, the crowds faced the screens, and people were happy.
Not me. Not this time.
"Dances with Wolves" is beautiful. The detailed conversion on my new Blu player is and was phenomenal. The individual blades of grass stood tall and at moments I felt as if I was right there with Costner as he chased Two-Socks, or crossed the sweeping frontier. Costner's film, if anything, gave a modern technology country a view of a world that nearly feels fictional. No computers, no cell phones, nothing facing you except nature, and the power of Mother Earth. Costner captures this feeling with perfection. Not only does he have the time to cultivate this sensation, but he uses both audio and visual references to assist with his imagery. There was no doubt in my mind that Costner felt dedicated to this project that his creative eye wasn't at the peak of its existence. His passion bled through the film, giving us that moment when "Dances with Wolves" transforms from Hollywood project to Costner's dream come true. For that I applaud Costner for following his heart and creating a visual treat that goes beyond your average film.
While Costner's imagery stands powerfully next to any great director's work, it is the overall story that ultimately holds back the rest of the film. Costner is obviously comfortable behind the camera, but it is his work within the film that feels a bit repetitive and cliché. Costner is not Lieutenant Dunbar. While he is the imaginative force behind the story, he cannot seem to tackle the character itself. Costner never quite transforms himself into something we haven't seen. Perhaps watching it during its release would have been a different story, but in 2008, one watches Costner be Costner only in Native American headwear. The scenes in this film where he first encounters the sounds of the frontier, or later when he finds an unseen love, were utterly dishonest. Costner was Costner; there was no other way to see it. The only parts that glimmered with a possible character were the beginning run through the barrage of open bullets, and the violent reintroduction to the white culture near the end were satisfactory, but for just a few short moments. Costner needed to tell us more about Dunbar, give us either flashbacks of his life or his reason for making decisions. The voiceover wasn't convincing enough as a conscious to give us true rhyme or reason. Those puppy dog eyes that Costner blasted any chance he had never gave us the torment that obviously dwelled within this man. There was a reason for his possible suicide attempt and escape into the wild. With no mention of family or history, it is difficult to understand Costner's why.
With Costner misleading us through the mapping of this film, it was left up to the other players to demonstrate a goal at the end of this four hour tunnel. This semi-happened with Graham Greene's character and Catherine McCormack's role, two people forced into cliché roles that they have played time and time again. This time they pulled it off well, but I just didn't believe them. Greene plays this character in every film he has ever been in, while McCormack's character was a cross between Helen Keller and Pocahontas. Not to sound offensive to Native American's, I was happy to see a sympathetic view of them via Costner's eyes, but it felt used. Hardship seemed to be an unknown word to this tribe. Costner was able to walk on in, build relationships, not worry about food rations, and easily jump right into the culture without any worry. There was never a moment where I found myself saying, "Ah, is he going to make it?" - the simplicity of it all seemed faked and merely in place for emotions sake.
Finally, the question of time has to be approached. Did Costner need four hours to tell this story? Alas, no. Using the beautiful landscape he merely bought time, aka filler, to push his simplistic tale from average story to epic. In two hours, Costner could have pushed the emotional button further and really dedicated himself to his character. At pushing 245 minutes, we felt as if we lost the character of Dunbar after the first hour and a half. With such a broad canvas, not enough was dedicated to the right parts. Costner's relationships with the other characters were pushed so far that a sense of apathy was built. Any cares that we had were brushed away at the two and a half hour mark.
Overall, Costner's film probably deserved the Oscars at the time - but it currently doesn't stand alone as a modern masterpiece. Costner misjudged this film pushing the framing too far and loosing the central focus. His character of Dunbar seemed more like an imitation of Droopy Dog in the frontier, instead of a stylized representation of a true soul. Costner does powerfully show us a sympathetic view of the Native American culture during the time of its downfall, but with such an epic nature I expected it to carry more realism. The Sioux has danger, they had fears, and they had their own to worry about, but once Costner appeared we saw none of that. Costner was so excited about learning about them, about communicating with them, that we never quite had the chance to see their world. Costner must be given credit for his eye in this film. While his directing skills were not as I anticipated, his visual eye was superb. Images that may never be captured again were detailed throughout, giving us the view of an epic - although lacking the other parts. "Dances with Wolves" is worth viewing at least once, but another four hours could not be done by this critic even if life depended on it.
Grade: ** ½ out of *****
|
3 Rating
|
